US 10724878

I'll search for this specific patent number across USPTO sources and CAFC/litigation dockets.

Let me verify the claim set and check for any litigation or PTAB activity involving this specific patent.

Let me look specifically for the granted US claim set and confirm there's no litigation or PTAB record.

US 10,724,878 B2 — Verification Summary

Search scope note (important): I searched for the literal string "10724878" across patent databases and Federal Circuit docket reporting. I found no CAFC 2026 docket, IPR, or district-court case involving this patent. The only non-patent hit for the bare number "10724878" was an unrelated SEC EDGAR accession/identifier for F.N.B. Corporation — evidence that the string returns false positives, and I did not treat it as related. I also did not retrieve the verbatim granted US claim text; the claim overview below is drawn from the patent's own Summary text and the claims of family member CN107037746A/B (same priority family). Treat the claim language as a faithful paraphrase, not a quote.

Bibliographic Data (from the authoritative patent record)

Abstract (verbatim, condensed)

"Example methods and apparatus to correct remote sensor signals are disclosed. An example apparatus includes a sensor to generate a signal and a first memory to store calibration data associated with the sensor. The example apparatus also includes a second memory to store the calibration data and a first processor proximate to the sensor and the first memory to retrieve the calibration data from the first memory. In addition, the example apparatus includes a second processor, proximate to the second memory and remotely situated relative to the first processor. The second processor is to receive the signal from the sensor, receive the calibration data from first processor, and correct the signal based on the calibration data."

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

1. Method claim — "correcting a remote sensor signal"
A first processor, located with the sensor (in the harsh process environment), pulls calibration data out of a first memory that sits next to it, where that calibration data describes how the sensor actually performs. The first processor ships that calibration data to a second processor that is located remotely, away from the harsh environment. The second processor saves the calibration data in its own local memory. Separately, the sensor's measurement signal goes to the second processor — not to the first processor (the first processor never receives the sensor signal). The second processor then applies the calibration data to correct (compensate/linearize) that signal.

2. Apparatus claim — two-processor architecture
The apparatus is: a sensor that produces a signal; a first memory holding calibration data tied to that sensor; a second memory holding the same calibration data; a first processor located next to the sensor and the first memory, which reads the calibration data out of the first memory; and a second processor located next to the second memory but remote from the first processor. The second processor is wired to receive the sensor signal, receive the calibration data from the first processor, and correct the signal using that calibration data.

3. Means-plus-function apparatus claim
Expressed functionally: means for generating a signal (the sensor); first means for storing calibration data associated with the generating means; second means for storing data; means for retrieving the calibration data from the first storing means, where the retrieving means sits alongside the generating means and the first storing means; and means for receiving the signal from the generating means, where the receiving means also receives the calibration data from the retrieving means and corrects the signal based on it — with the receiving means located next to the second storing means and remote from the retrieving means.

Representative dependent concepts (per the family's claim set): correction may be digital correction; the second processor requests the calibration data, which causes the first processor to power up/operate (it is otherwise dormant); calibration data may be sent without any user instruction; the remote unit and its processor can be swapped out for a new sensor/processor/memory combination; and the corrected signal is used to control a process or determine a measurement.

Technical gist

The invention relocates sensor compensation away from the harsh environment. Sensor conditioning circuitry (amplifiers/filters) and the sensor itself are rugged and stay in the field, but the sensitive digital processor and calibration memory on the remote sensing unit are normally powered down, activated only when the local (non-harsh-environment) controller requests the calibration data via a level detector/switch reference-voltage scheme. Once the local controller has the calibration data cached in its own memory, the remote processor can be deactivated while raw sensor signals continue flowing to the local unit for correction. Commercial embodiments cited in the specification: Fisher® FIELDVUE™ DVC6215 (remote sensing unit) and DVC6205 (local control unit).

Uncertainty disclosures

• No CAFC 2026 litigation found. If you need a definitive litigation/PTAB check, that requires a paid docket service (e.g., Docket Navigator, Lexis) — the public searches returned nothing on point.
• Granted claim text not independently verified. The claim numbering (three independents, whether 13 or 20 total claims) shown in family members differs between CN publications; I have not confirmed the exact US claim count or verbatim wording from an authoritative source in this session, so I flagged the claim overview as paraphrase.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10724878 across patent litigation databases.

The initial results returned unrelated patents (e.g., '078 references to U.S. 12,133,078 and 10,715,878 — different patents entirely). Let me run more targeted searches.

Summary of Findings

I found no litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,724,878.

Based on my searches of patent-litigation-oriented sources (RPX Insight, CourtListener/RECAP, PTAB/PTActs, CAFC opinions, Unified Patents-adjacent materials, and general web searches), I could not identify any district court case, ITC investigation, PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR/CBM), or Federal Circuit appeal in which U.S. Patent No. 10,724,878 is the patent-in-suit, an asserted patent, or a challenged patent.

Important caveat on the search results (do not auto-correct, but do not conflate)

Every hit that referenced a "'078 patent" turned out to be a different patent number, and these should not be attributed to 10,724,878:

• U.S. Patent No. 12,133,078 B2 — owned by Yondr/Graham Dugoni; subject of a declaratory-judgment invalidity/inequitable-conduct action (e.g., case cited as 2:24-cv-09311) and RPX filings. This is not 10,724,878.
• U.S. Patent No. 10,715,878 B2 — an AlmondNet patent subject to IPRs by Samsung, Roku, and Meta (e.g., IPR2022-01315, IPR2022-01505, IPR2022-00773). This is not 10,724,878.
• Ultravision's '078 / '248 / '738 patents (LED-display litigation against Yaham, et al.). Different numbers entirely.
• The Fisher Controls / Emerson results (Sinclair Wyoming Refining, asbestos matters like Daly v. Amchem, In re Hawai'i State Asbestos Cases) are product-liability litigation, not patent litigation over 10,724,878.

None of these match 10,724,878 ("Methods and apparatus to correct remote sensor signals," Fisher Controls International LLC, inventor Adam Joseph Wittkop).

What I could not confirm

• Specific case details (plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, status) — because no such case was located.
• I also want to be transparent: I hit a search-step limit before I could exhaustively query PACER directly or run every variant spelling of the patent number. My negative result is based on the sources actually returned, not a provably exhaustive PACER docket sweep. Independent verification on PACER/RPX/unifiedpatents is advisable before relying on this as a definitive "no litigation" conclusion.

Bottom line

Per the available sources, no litigation is known involving U.S. Patent No. 10,724,878. The patent is a 2020-issued Fisher Controls (Emerson) patent that appears to have been maintained (active, with an adjusted expiration noted as 2036-09-17) without reported enforcement activity. If you need a court-grade confirmation, the authoritative next steps would be a direct PACER docket search on the patent number and a query on the Unified Patents litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), which I was unable to complete within this session.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings — no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition has ever been filed against U.S. Patent No. 10,724,878 (breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials).

This is a "silence, not a win" posture. The patent has not been hardened (or narrowed) through any PTAB challenge, and no claim has been canceled — but neither has any petitioner ever tried. For a defendant, that means every claim remains presumptively valid and fully enforceable as issued, and an IPR is an open, untested option rather than a path already blazed by someone else. There is no free-ride invalidation to point at, and no estoppel to your benefit.

(no proceedings to itemize)

The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — the canonical list drawn from the USPTO Open Data Portal — returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. I ran corroborating web searches for IPR/PGR petitions, PTAB final written decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals referencing this patent number, its title ("Methods and apparatus to correct remote sensor signals"), its inventor (Adam Joseph Wittkop), and its owner (Fisher Controls International LLC / Emerson). Every hit was either the patent itself, its foreign family members (e.g., CN107037746B, CN206920856U, RU2732317C2, EP3368862B1), or unrelated patents with coincidentally similar numbers. I found no proceeding to report.

There is therefore nothing to put in the per-proceeding template (no petitioner, no panel, no FWD, no appeal). I will not manufacture a proceeding number to fill the section.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Because no AIA trial has ever been instituted against this patent, all claims stand as issued and untested: every independent claim and every dependent claim of 10,724,878 is intact. Per the patent's own disclosure, the claims cover a two-processor architecture — a "first processor" proximate to a sensor and a first memory (the remote/harsh-environment unit) that retrieves calibration data and pushes it to a "second processor" (the local control unit) that receives the raw sensor signal, stores the calibration data, and corrects the signal itself, with the first processor expressly not receiving the sensor signal. If a demand letter or complaint is served on you, you must read the actual asserted claims and the prosecution history — nothing about this patent has been judicially or administratively construed, so claim construction is wide open (no Phillips or BRI construction exists yet on the record).

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is not triggered at all — estoppel only attaches to a petitioner who obtains an FWD. With no prior petitioner, there are no barred grounds and no privies carrying estoppel. If you are being asserted against, your full prior-art universe is available: any § 102/§ 103 ground you can raise in a district court or in a fresh IPR remains open, including art the examiner never considered. (The patent's own foreign search reports cite applicants such as US2011/0010035, GB2491033, EP0984287 and CN100592230 — a starting point, not a limit.)

Pattern signals. There is no pattern to read: no repeat petitioner, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents or similar filing), no patent-owner appeal activity. Fisher Controls / Emerson is a large operating company, not a serial enforcer of this portfolio, and this patent appears to be a defensive/portfolio asset rather than a litigation weapon. The absence of any IPR is itself the signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract challenges, and this one never has. That is consistent with the litigation summary finding (no district court assertion located either).

Caveat / verification. My searches hit a step limit before I could exhaustively sweep PACER, PTAB E2E, or the full Unified Patents litigation portal. The negative result is grounded in the USPTO ODP structured data plus the web sources actually returned, not a provably exhaustive docket sweep. If a filing is very recent (e.g., within the last few weeks), the ODP ingest may simply not have it yet. Independently confirm on PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov) and the Unified Patents trial portal before relying on this as definitive.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant (patent intact, no PTAB history): treat this as a clean slate. There is no FWD to cite and no disposed proceeding to leverage — so build your invalidity case from scratch. Immediately pull the file wrapper (USPTO PatentCenter for application 15/042,981) to see what art the examiner applied and what arguments the applicant made, since that record will drive both claim construction and any § 325(d) "same art already considered" risk if you file an IPR later.
• IPR timing check: the patent issued 2020-07-28. Post-grant review (PGR) is time-barred (only 9 months post-issue, long expired), so IPR is your only AIA vehicle, limited to § 102/§ 103 on patents and printed publications. § 315(b) gives you a one-year window from service of a complaint alleging infringement — calendar that date immediately if litigation is threatened or filed.
• No pending milestones to track. There is no pending trial, no institution-decision deadline, no oral hearing, and no FWD due date to monitor, because no petition exists.
• If you merely need a clearance opinion, note that the absence of PTAB activity means the validity presumption is undisturbed; any non-infringement or invalidity position must stand on its own merits, and you should not assume this patent is weak merely because it has never been challenged.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10,724,878 across the USPTO Assignment Center, Google Patents legal events, and related sources.

I've hit the search-step ceiling before exhausting the Assignment Center queries. Below is what I can substantiate from the authoritative patent record plus the searches completed. I flag every gap rather than fill it.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: Not present. This is a single-inventor, single-company case. There is no cluster of co-inventors departing together, no post-filing inventor-to-third-party assignment, and nothing resembling a portfolio fire-sale trigger. Caveat: employer attribution is inferred from the recorded assignment chain (inventor → Fisher Controls); a W-2/employment record would be the definitive proof, and that is not a public filing.

Original assignee

Fisher Controls International LLC (original and current assignee per the record).

• Location: Marshalltown, Iowa (US); the entity is the valve/instrumentation arm historically of Fisher Controls, now within Emerson Electric Co.'s automation business (Emerson Process Management, later Emerson Automation Solutions).
• Primary line of business: Process-control equipment — control valves, valve positioners, digital valve controllers, regulators.
• Ships a product embodying the claims: Yes, on the record. The specification names two commercial embodiments of the claimed two-processor architecture: the Fisher® FIELDVUE™ DVC6215 ("remote sensing unit" 102) and the Fisher® FIELDVUE™ DVC6205 ("local control unit" 104), both "developed and sold by Emerson Process Management®." These are the claim-embodying products.
• Current status: Operating, as part of a large public parent. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or divestiture of the patent was found.

Assignment timeline

The authoritative patent record (Google Patents legal events, which mirrors the USPTO assignment data) shows exactly one recorded assignment against US 10,724,878. I could not retrieve the reel/frame number or the correspondent from the sources available in this session — I am reporting the event as recorded without inventing an identifier.

• 2016-02-17 (recorded) — Reel/Frame not retrieved in this session
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: WITTKOP, ADAM JOSEPH (sole)
  • Assignee: FISHER CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL LLC
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved. The correspondent of record for this reel could not be confirmed from the available sources; I will not guess at an attorney or firm.
  • Context: Ordinary employer assignment of an employee-inventor's rights to his corporate employer — recorded five days after the 2016-02-12 application filing and roughly 3.5 months after the 2015-10-30 provisional. This is a routine first-assignment, not an acquisition, reorg, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

Execution date: The recorded date is 2016-02-17 (reassignment record). The execution date is typically on or within a few days of the 2016-02-12 filing; I could not confirm the exact execution date.

No records exist after this one. Two important consequences:

1. There is no post-issuance assignment — nothing recorded between the 2020-07-28 grant and today. Under USPTO practice that means Fisher Controls International LLC still owns the patent (consistent with the record listing Fisher Controls as "Current Assignee").
2. The family-mates (EP 3368862 B1, CA 3003024 C, RU 2732317 C2, CN 107037746 B, CN 206920856 U) are national-phase/priority filings of the same PCT (PCT/US2016/059390 → WO 2017/075400 A1) and are not separate US assignment-chain links. Where a foreign record exists (e.g., Brazilian INPI records for other Fisher patents list local agent "Momsen, Leonardos & CIA"), that is foreign-agent correspondence, not a US assignment event.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10724878
    2015 : Provisional filed by Wittkop
    2016 : Non-provisional filed
         : Assigned to Fisher Controls
    2020 : Patent issued

NPE / troll-pattern signals

For each, the specific reel/frame and dates are cited where available; where unavailable, that is stated.

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. No assignment to any "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" entity appears. The only recorded link is the inventor-to-employer assignment (recorded 2016-02-17). The assignee (Fisher Controls International LLC) is an operating subsidiary with named commercial products, not a Delaware/Texas single-purpose LLC at a registered-agent address.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Neither the original nor current assignee (Fisher Controls International LLC) appears on any of the NPE lists named in the brief (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities) or on Unified Patents / RPX high-frequency-plaintiff lists as a plaintiff for this patent. (Consistent with the earlier litigation section, which found no suit naming this patent.)

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT ASSESSABLE. There is only one link in the chain, and I could not retrieve its correspondent. With a single assignment there is by definition no recurrence to test. Reporting a name here would be fabrication, so I am not doing so.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. One recorded transfer in ten years of the patent's life; no chained LLCs, no shared correspondent addresses, no sub-24-month sequence.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. No infringement suit naming the patent was found (earlier section). The nearest assignment (2016-02-17) predates the 2020-07-28 issuance itself and is an employer assignment, not a pre-suit standing-arrangement transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving Fisher Controls/Emerson, and no patent sale out of any estate, was found. (The Fisher Controls names that appear in unrelated litigation — e.g., Sinclair Wyoming Refining, asbestos matters — are product-liability, not bankruptcy patent sales.)

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No transfer from an operating company to an NPE asserting on its behalf; nothing in SEC filings or press surfaced. The only outward-facing control of the patent is its use in Emerson/Fisher products.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. Inversion: had it, that would be a neutralization finding; it is not the case here.

Verdict

Insufficient data — in the narrow sense the rubric defines: only the original assignment is on record. The sole recorded link is the 2016-02-17 employer assignment from Adam Joseph Wittkop to Fisher Controls International LLC; no post-issuance transfer, license, security interest, or change of name was found, so Fisher Controls remains the current owner. That single link is an ordinary employee-inventor assignment, and it contains none of the enumerated NPE tells — no shell entity, no known asserter, no cascade, no pre-suit transfer, no bankruptcy sale, no privateering, no defensive aggregator. Practically, this reads as a non-asserting operating company holding (Fisher Controls/Emerson sells the DVC6215/DVC6205 embodied by the claims), but the rubric reserves "operating-company assertion" for a party that is suing actual competitors on the claims, and no such suit exists — so the strict label is Insufficient data.

Two caveats you should carry forward:

• The reel/frame number and correspondent of record were not retrieved in this session; my earlier "no litigation" finding is likewise a search-based negative, not a PACER-exhaustive one. I hit the step limit before completing Assignment Center and PACER queries.
• Nothing here should be relied on as court-grade. The authoritative next step is a direct query at the USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (search patent number 10724878) — to capture the reel/frame and correspondent, plus a PACER docket sweep and the Unified Patents case list (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist) for litigation confirmation.

I'll research the prior art citations for US 10,724,878. Let me search for the patent's cited references.

Let me search more specifically for the cited references on the patent's face.

Let me look at the international search report for the PCT family member, which shares the same priority.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,724,878 B2

"Methods and apparatus to correct remote sensor signals" | Fisher Controls International LLC | Inventor: Adam Joseph Wittkop | Filed 2016-02-12 | Issued 2020-07-28 | Priority 2015-10-30 (US 62/248,766)

Scope & Verification Status (read first)

I was unable to retrieve the verbatim front-page "References Cited" listing (the (56) block) of US 10,724,878 B2 within this session's search budget. My searches for the number plus "References Cited / cited by / prior art cited" returned:

• the patent's own specification text (Justia, FreePatentsOnline, Patents-Review, PatentsEncyclopedia) — which contains no patent citation list, and
• search reports of other patents (e.g., PCT/CL2018/050099, PCT/IB2018/050378, PCT/US2015/020365), which cite references in the same general field and/or from the same assignee but are not the references of record on US 10,724,878.

Consequence for this task: I can provide a field-grounded candidate prior-art set with full citations and provisional § 102 analysis, but I cannot represent it as the confirmed examiner-cited list on this patent. Per the operating rule against fabrication, I am flagging every reference below with its actual basis (search-report category vs. field inference). Treat the § 102 mappings as provisional and requiring confirmation against the actual ISR/USPTO file wrapper.

To close this gap authoritatively, the two decisive sources are:

1. Google Patents → US10724878B2 → "Patent Citations" pane (lists the (56) references verbatim): https://patents.google.com/patent/US10724878B2/en
2. USPTO PatentCenter file wrapper for App. 15/042,981, and the WO 2017/075400 A1 ISR (PCT/US2016/059390), which would list the "X/Y/A" categories the examiner relied on.

Candidate Prior Art (field-relevant, non-exhaustive)

The claims cover a two-processor architecture: a remote, normally-unpowered processor that reads calibration data from a sensor-adjacent memory and transfers it to a local processor that caches the data and applies it to the raw sensor signal (which the remote processor never sees). Any anticipatory art must disclose (a) calibration/compensation data stored remote-from-the-correction-processor and transferred between processors, and ideally (b) the sensor signal bypassing the correction-data source.

Note on P1–P5: these appeared as "X" references in other patents' search reports. That makes them strong § 102 candidates for the subject matter, but it does not establish that any of them is a reference of record on US 10,724,878. Where a reference's cited passages map to claim 1's "first processor retrieves calibration data… sends it to a second processor" and "the first processor [does not receive] the signal" limitation, that is the crux for anticipation. None of the summaries above confirms the dual-processor calibration-transfer + signal-bypass combination — so on the present record, none of P1–P8 is confirmed to anticipate claim 1.

§ 102 Mapping — Honest Assessment

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a reference anticipates only if it discloses every limitation, arranged as claimed. The independent claim 1 turn on a specific combination:

1. First processor retrieves calibration data from a first (sensor-proximate) memory;
2. First processor sends the calibration data to a second, remote processor;
3. Second processor stores the data in its own memory;
4. Second processor receives the sensor signal; the first processor does not; and
5. Second processor corrects the signal using the calibration data.

The distinguishing, narrow element is the direct separation of "(calibration-data source + dormant processor)" from "signal-correction processor," with the raw signal routed around the first processor (specification: "sensor signals… are not delivered to a processor 126 of the remote sensing unit 102"). Generic local-vs-remote transmitter/controller art (P2–P4, P6–P8) discloses distributed control and calibration generally, but I found no reference in the surfaced set that expressly discloses the signal-bypass limitation (element 4) — which is precisely the point of novelty the applicant appears to rely on. That is why I stop short of asserting any § 102 rejection.

Categories actually supported by the surfaced evidence:

• § 102 (anticipation): none confirmed. P1 is the leading candidate to test if the full ISR text is obtained.
• § 103 (obviousness, for completeness): P2 + P3 (both Fisher/Emerson field-device disclosures) would be the natural combination to attack elements 1–3 and 5 if element 4 were shown to be an obvious design choice — but the record here doesn't support that either.

Explicit Uncertainty & Contradiction Flags

• No contradiction with the prior generated sections; this analysis reinforces their disclosure that the claim text itself was not independently verified (granted claim set drawn from the family), and that no litigation/PTAB record exists.
• I did not retrieve the (56) block, so the literal request — "for each patent citation for 10724878, provide full citation, date, description, and § 102 claim mapping" — cannot be fully satisfied for the cited references; the table gives field-candidate references instead, clearly labeled.
• Do not conflate: search hits for "10724878" also returned JP 10724878 (JPS589728B2, an unrelated Japanese cement-mold application) and SEC EDGAR accession "10724878" (F.N.B. Corp.) — neither is related to this patent. I did not use them.

Recommended authoritative next step: open the Google Patents "Patent Citations" pane and the USPTO file wrapper ISR, then re-run the § 102 mapping against the actual "X"-categorized references. If you can supply that list (or the WO 2017/075400 A1 ISR), I can produce the definitive per-reference anticipation analysis.

I'll analyze obviousness for US 10,724,878. First, one important flag: the patent text provided in this session does not contain a "Prior Art" or "Citations" section (Google Patents renders these as "Citations" / "Cited By" tables, which weren't captured in the fetched text). So I cannot literally "use the results from the Prior Art section of this page" — there is none in the provided material. Let me search for grounding prior art directly, and I'll flag anything I can't confirm.

Let me retrieve the actual citation/reference list from the Google Patents record for this patent.

I found the family's citation list. Let me retrieve the complete set from the Google Patents record.

I've gathered the available grounding. Before the analysis, two mandatory disclosures:

⚠️ Prior-art source limitation (per your instruction to "use the results from the Prior Art section"): The patent text supplied in this session contains no "Prior Art," "Citations," or "References Cited" section. Google Patents renders these as separate tables that were not captured in the fetched text. So I cannot literally quote "the Prior Art section of this page." I recovered the reference list from the family member CN 107037746 A (Google Patents "Citations (6)" table), plus a same-assignee Fisher reference, and I ground the rest on well-documented prior art in this field. I hit a search-step limit and could not open the US 10,724,878 Google Patents citation list itself. Treat the reference-by-reference element mapping below as a reasoned framework, not a verbatim claim chart.

⚠️ Claim text: Consistent with the prior "Patent summary" section, I could not verify the verbatim granted US claim language in this session. The limitations I test below are the ones already flagged as paraphrase (three independents — method, apparatus, means-plus-function — plus dependents on digital correction, request-triggered activation, user-independent transfer, unit swap-out, and process control). If the granted language differs, the analysis should be re-run.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Pat. No. 10,724,878 ("Correct remote sensor signals")

1. Governing framework and file posture

• Effective filing date: 2016-02-12 (provisional US 62/248,766, 2015-10-30) → post-AIA, so AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 apply. Prior art under §102(a)(1)/(a)(2) must predate 2015-10-30 (or the 2016-02-12 filing for the provisional-supported subject matter).
• §103 test: Graham v. John Deere — (1) scope/content of the prior art, (2) differences, (3) PHOSITA level, (4) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, a combination is obvious if there was a rational underpinning and the combination was predictable — e.g., (a) known technique to improve a similar device, (b) simple substitution of a known element, (c) use of a known technique to a device "ready for improvement."
• PHOSITA here: a degreed engineer (electrical/controls) with ~2–5 years in process instrumentation/smart sensors, familiar with IEEE 1451 TEDS, HART/PROFIBUS field devices, and remote I/O.

Scope of the claimed advance (per the paraphrase): the only structurally distinctive moves are (i) splitting calibration data (stored remotely, near the sensor) from the correction computation (performed at a local, non-harsh-environment processor), and (ii) routing the raw sensor signal to the second processor, never to the first, while the first processor is normally dormant and wakes only to hand off the calibration data.

Every one of those moves has deep roots in the prior art of "smart sensors."

2. Prior art references identified (with grounding)

§102(b)(2)(C) caution for reference F: US 9,893,770 and the patent-in-suit share common ownership (Fisher Controls). A commonly-owned application/patent is excepted from §102(a)(2) prior art. So F is best used as evidence of the state of the field / POSITA knowledge and of a known Fisher design incentive, not as standalone §102(a)(2) art — unless its 2014 PCT publication date supports an (a)(1) theory. I flag this because parties frequently over-assert same-assignee references.

3. The keystone reference: TEDS/IEEE 1451.4 (A1/A2) maps most of the independent claims

TEDS is the reason this patent is vulnerable. Strip the claim to elements:

Dependents practically fall out of TEDS too:

• Digital correction — TEDS is a digital serial interface; correction at the host is digital.
• First processor normally inoperative; request causes operation; deactivated after transfer — TEDS expressly teaches switching the memory circuit OFF after transfer and resuming normal analog operation. A POSITA would combine this with well-known power-gating/wake-on-request to save power and extend life in a hot/vibrating field enclosure — a classic KSR "known technique to improve a similar device."
• Transfer independent of user instruction — TEDS automatically reads calibration data "whenever a new sensor is attached"; no user step required (turnkey/auto-ID is a marketed TEDS benefit).

If the granted independent claims read on a field-mounted conditioner containing a processor that hands calibration data to a remote host which then corrects — TEDS plus routine engineering is a very strong §103 position.

4. The named combinations and motivations to combine

Combination 1 (strongest): A (TEDS/IEEE 1451.4) + F (Fisher Base Station) + B (Qualcomm)

Why a PHOSITA would combine: KSR rationale (a)/(c) — applying a known smart-sensor technique (store calibration in sensor memory; transfer to and correct at the receiver) to the known process-control topology of remote sensors feeding a local base station/controller. Reference F is literally a Fisher base station gathering data from localized (remote) sensors and storing it in memory; adding TEDS-style calibration handoff to it is a predictable, one-or-two-step substitution that yields no new physical result beyond the expected improvement in measurement accuracy. Motivation: identical field (process instrumentation), identical problem (sensor-to-controller accuracy/cabling), and a design incentive to reduce field-device complexity.

Combination 2: D (Caterpillar config strategy) + E (Kavlico single-pin calibration) + A (TEDS)

Why combine: Caterpillar teaches pulling custom configuration/parameter data to a controller that applies it; Kavlico teaches downloading sensor calibration over a shared pin/connection to receiving electronics. Combining them to move correction off the sensor and onto the receiving controller is a "known technique to improve a similar device." The only remaining recited wrinkle — the sensor-side unit holding the calibration memory and pushing it out while its processor stays dormant — is the TEDS "switch off memory circuit after transfer" teaching.

Combination 3: A (TEDS) + C (Ford smart vehicle sensor) + B (Qualcomm)

Why combine: Ford and Qualcomm establish the general practice of sensor-side identification/data with host-side processing across vehicle/multi-sensor systems — i.e., standing motivation in the art to distribute intelligence between sensor and host. Applying that to a harsh-environment process-control sensor is the "arrange known elements to achieve a predictable result" case of KSR.

The critical motivation driving all three

The specification's own "harsh environment" premise is the motivation. Placing the environment-sensitive digital processor/memory in a hot/radiating/vibrating field and the rugged analog conditioning in the field is exactly the split the art already suggested: keep cheap/robust analog at the sensor; move the compute-heavy, drift-prone digital work to a protected controller. A POSITA with a stated problem ("processor/memory unreliable in the field") and TEDS in hand would predictably relocate the correction step — §103's core case.

5. Anticipated counter-arguments and rebuttals

6. Conclusion

Under §103, US 10,724,878 is vulnerable to an obviousness challenge, and the strongest single-reference-plus-common-knowledge attack is IEEE 1451.4 TEDS (A1) / US 9,243,938 (A2), optionally combined with the same-field Fisher reference US 9,893,770 (F) and the family-cited Qualcomm/Ford/Caterpillar/Kavlico references (B–E). The claimed combination largely reconstructs well-known smart-sensor calibration handoff (store calibration in sensor memory → transfer to receiving processor → correct there → power down the sensor-side transfer circuit) applied to a known process-control topology (remote sensors to a local controller), which KSR treats as predictable. The most defensible non-obviousness toeholds for the patentee are (i) the specific level-detector/reference-voltage wake scheme, if the granted claims recite it with particularity, and (ii) any evidence of unexpected results — neither of which I could confirm from the materials available.

7. Confidence & verification checklist (be honest about what I did not confirm)

• Confirmed via search: the family citation list (6 references: Caterpillar WO2008/088819, Qualcomm US2008/0234935, Ford US2011/0010035, Kavlico CN102348995, + ≥1 more truncated) at the CN107037746A Google Patents page; and US 9,893,770 (Junk, Fisher) as a same-assignee field reference.
• Well-established prior art, but I did not retrieve the verbatim TEDS standard text in this session: IEEE 1451.4 behavior (I grounded the quotes on the PCB Piezotronics and Control Engineering TEDS pages).
• NOT verified: the complete US 10,724,878 "References Cited" table (I hit the search-step limit); the verbatim granted claims; and whether the family's additional cited reference(s) (the truncated "CN1…") change the picture.
• Recommended next steps to convert this framework into a citable claim chart: (1) pull the USPTO PatentCenter "References Cited" / IFW for application 15/042,981; (2) pull the exact granted claims; (3) retrieve full text of US 2008/0234935, US 2011/0010035, WO 2008/088819, and CN 102348995 to pin down paragraph-level citations; (4) confirm the §102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership status of US 9,893,770 before relying on it.

I could not confirm some of the above with high confidence, and I have said so explicitly rather than filling the gaps by assumption.